Time for electoral reform

I was glad to see Marc Racicot and Bob Brown’s proposal for a top two primary in the Havre Daily last week. It is not that I think an open primary system, by itself, is the one thing needed for a more representative and more effective government. It is also not that I share former Republican Gov. Marc Racicot and former Republican Secretary of State Bob Brown’s enthusiasm for the kind of moderate Republican government which, I suspect, might re-emerge in Montana from this particular reform — if it is the only reform. What I do share with Brown and Racicot is a conviction that electoral reform is urgent. Moderate Republicans, like Brown and Racicot know that continuing to do elections the old-fashioned way means a lot of voters don’t get to make the kind of choices they would like to make, and these two experienced government leaders also find that our current primaries threaten our state government’s ability to get the basic business of governing right.

Brown, Racicot, and a few other old guard Republicans aren’t the only ones who think election processes could be better. Remember when the Berniecrats sued the Democratic party for allegedly stacking the deck against their candidate, Bernie Sanders, in the 2016 presidential election (the judge ruled the party was not obliged to play fair)? How about Montana Greens complaining because they couldn’t even get their presidential candidate on the ballot? And then there are the real whiners, those perpetual election spoilers who call themselves independents and who seem to think that, just because they are the largest voting block (now as much as 45 percent of the electorate, according to some polls), we have to change our time-honored way of doing business just so they can have a say. You know you are dealing with an independent when you start hearing stuff like ranked choice voting, or approval voting, final five voting, in addition to open primaries ... or no primaries.  

Just about all of these folks (some may have infiltrated your own neighborhood) agree there are problems with the way elections work in many parts of the country, including Montana, starting with the primaries. Consider the Montana system Brown and Racicot want to reform. It could be worse. In some states you have to be a registered member of the Republican or the Democratic party to vote in that party’s primary, In Montana, you can show up on primary day and ask for the Democrat ballot, even though you voted in the Republican primary last time, or vice versa. You get a choice between a Democrat and a Republican primary ballot. But what if you really liked one of the three Republican candidates in the governor’s race and wanted to give that candidate a hand, and one of the four Democrats in the House race? You get to express one of those preferences, but not both. Worse, what if you are a Libertarian or a Green? If you don’t want to support either the Republicans or the Democrats, you probably are not happy to see the state running a primary that gives candidates of the two major parties a big name recognition boost over any minor party or independent candidate. 

The problem is, not every election reform benefits all reformers equally. Proponents generally agree that the kind of top two open primaries Brown and Racicot call for tend to increase the likelihood that a moderate wins the general election. Why? If only Republicans are voting one primary ballot and only Democrats are voting the other, Republicans will tend to send the Republicanist of them all to the general election, and Democrats will reciprocate with their own mostest Democrat. But if everybody — Democrat, Republican, Cat person — is voting the same primary ballot, the odds are good, a couple of more moderate candidates will advance to the general election.

On the other hand, California already has a top two open primary system. Some California Republicans don’t like it; the Democratic party is so dominant in many parts of California, that both of the top two in a primary will often be Democrats. Montana is different from California. As of the last election, Republicans dominate in Montana. Putting those pieces together, the result for Montana is likely to be the election of more moderate Republicans — that’s assuming the only thing we change about our elections is to adopt a top two open primary. Whether or not you think that is a good outcome will partly depend on your attitude toward “moderate” Republicans. Some of you may prefer the term “good” Republicans, while others may prefer RHINO (Republican in Name Only). For my own part, if the only choice is between moderate/good/RHINO Republicans and the kind of crew that gave us enough doubtful legislation to keep the courts busy for years to come, I’ll take moderate.

But that isn’t the only choice. There is no good reason to settle for one reform that does nothing to make the electoral system more representative for all those people who prefer to say “Neither” to the Republican/Democrat choice, and which may actually weaken one of the two major parties in some elections (remember the California Republican complaint about top two open primaries). That is the reason the real reform needed may be something like the major overhaul Alaska has undertaken. The new Alaskan system ends party primaries in favor of an open primary that promotes the top four vote getters to the general election, and then employs ranked choice voting to determine a winner. 

Complicated? Not really, according to voters who have tried the kind of reform Alaska has embarked on, but explaining just how all of those changes can work will take some talking. As a starting point, if you think it would be a good idea to require some kind of stamp of approval from at least 50 percent plus of the voters, you may want to learn more about ranked choice or approval voting. If you think it would be good some day to vote for somebody other than the candidate who dismays you the least, you may also be interested in a final four or five reform.

——

Will Rawn is a retired Montana State University-Northern professor.